throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: May 4, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BATTERY-BIZ, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COMARCO WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00630 (Patent 7,863,770 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00632 (Patent 7,460,381 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Denying Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Mr. Charles Quinn
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`Patent Owner, Comarco Wireless Technologies, Inc., filed a motion
`for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Charles Quinn. Paper 6.2 Patent Owner
`also filed a declaration from Mr. Quinn in support of its motion. Paper 7. In
`
`
`1 We use this caption in this paper to indicate that this Order applies to, and
`is entered in, both cases. The parties are not authorized to use this caption.
`2 Papers filed thus far in IPR2016-00630 and IPR2016-00632 have identical
`paper numbers.
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00630 (Patent 7,863,770 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00632 (Patent 7,460,381 B2)
`
`addition, Patent Owner filed a request for authorization to file a motion for
`pro hac vice admission. Paper 8. Petitioner, Battery-Biz, Inc., has not
`opposed Patent Owner’s motion.
`Having reviewed the motion and the declaration of Mr. Quinn, we
`deny Patent Owner’s motion without prejudice. As stated in the Notice of
`Filing Date Accorded to Petition entered in these proceedings, pro hac vice
`motions shall be filed in accordance with the requirements set forth in
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB
`Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7), which is available on the PTAB website under
`“Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices.” Paper 3, 2. In particular,
`a motion for pro hac vice admission must be accompanied by an affidavit or
`declaration of the individual seeking to appear attesting to several things,
`including that the individual will be subject to the USPTO Rules of
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a). Unified Patents, Case
`IPR2013-00639, slip op. at 3. In 2013, the USPTO Rules of Professional
`Conduct replaced the USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility,
`previously set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20 et seq. Id. at 2.
`In these proceedings, Patent Owner submitted a declaration from
`Mr. Quinn stating that he agrees to be subject to the USPTO Code of
`Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20 et seq. As
`explained in Unified Patents, a declaration from an individual seeking pro
`hac vice admission should instead refer to the USPTO Rules of Professional
`Conduct, 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. Accordingly, Patent Owner is
`authorized to file a revised motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Quinn,
`accompanied by a declaration in which he states he will be subject to the
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00630 (Patent 7,863,770 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00632 (Patent 7,460,381 B2)
`
`USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. The
`declaration should be filed as a Patent Owner exhibit rather than a paper, and
`the revised motion should refer to the declaration by exhibit number. Patent
`Owner also should confer with Petitioner and indicate in the revised motion
`whether Petitioner plans to oppose the motion.
`We also note that the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition in
`these proceedings authorized the parties to file motions for pro hac vice
`admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). Therefore, it is unnecessary for either
`party to request authorization to file a motion for pro hac vice admission.
`Moreover, the proper procedure for requesting authorization to file a motion
`(when authorization is required) is to send an email to the Board at the
`address at the top of the first page of this order, requesting a conference call
`with the Board to obtain authorization to file a motion.
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Charles Quinn is denied without prejudice;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file a
`revised motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Quinn, accompanied by a
`revised declaration from Mr. Quinn attesting to the items set forth in Unified
`Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15,
`2013) (Paper 7);
`FURTHER ORDERED that the revised motion should indicate
`whether Petitioner plans to oppose the motion;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Quinn’s revised declaration should
`be filed as an exhibit;
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00630 (Patent 7,863,770 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00632 (Patent 7,460,381 B2)
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a revised motion for pro hac vice and a
`revised declaration should be filed no later than May 11, 2016; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that any opposition by Petitioner must be
`filed no later than one week after the filing date of Patent Owner’s revised
`motion.
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`David A. Dillard
`Sami I. Schilly
`LEWIS ROCA ROTHBERGER CHRISTIE, LLP
`ddillard@lrrc.com
`sschilly@lrrc.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Harris A. Wolin
`GRAHAM CURTIN, PA
`hwolin@grahamcurtin.com
`
`
`4

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket